▲ 159 ▼ No one spells "lose" anymore (thelemmy.club) submitted 23 hours ago by sanitation@lemmy.today to c/mildlyinfuriating@lemmy.world 104 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] icanbrewmushrooms@lemmy.world 2 points 18 hours ago* (1 child) Its use as an intensifier dates back to the 1700s, and only since the early 20th century has its use as an intensifier been controversial permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] DJKJuicy@sh.itjust.works -2 points 18 hours ago* (2 children) Yup. And sometimes bad means bad and bad means good, but bad still means bad in the dictionary so unless I'm in an casual discussion where slang is acceptable, bad still means bad. Unlike literally which is now defined as literally or figuratively in the dictionary as of 2013. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] icanbrewmushrooms@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago (1 child) According to Merriam-Webster they included its non-literal use in their dictionary since at least 1909. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] DJKJuicy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 hours ago* Well I went back to the Merriam Webster page from 2010 and all the news articles from 2013 about changing the definition of literally are objectively bullshit, so I was wrong. Merriam Webster Literally 2010 permalink fedilink source parent [+] icanbrewmushrooms@lemmy.world 1 point 18 hours ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] DJKJuicy@sh.itjust.works -2 points 18 hours ago* (2 children) Yup. And sometimes bad means bad and bad means good, but bad still means bad in the dictionary so unless I'm in an casual discussion where slang is acceptable, bad still means bad. Unlike literally which is now defined as literally or figuratively in the dictionary as of 2013. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] icanbrewmushrooms@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago (1 child) According to Merriam-Webster they included its non-literal use in their dictionary since at least 1909. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] DJKJuicy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 hours ago* Well I went back to the Merriam Webster page from 2010 and all the news articles from 2013 about changing the definition of literally are objectively bullshit, so I was wrong. Merriam Webster Literally 2010 permalink fedilink source parent [+] icanbrewmushrooms@lemmy.world 1 point 18 hours ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] icanbrewmushrooms@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago (1 child) According to Merriam-Webster they included its non-literal use in their dictionary since at least 1909. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] DJKJuicy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 hours ago* Well I went back to the Merriam Webster page from 2010 and all the news articles from 2013 about changing the definition of literally are objectively bullshit, so I was wrong. Merriam Webster Literally 2010 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] DJKJuicy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 hours ago* Well I went back to the Merriam Webster page from 2010 and all the news articles from 2013 about changing the definition of literally are objectively bullshit, so I was wrong. Merriam Webster Literally 2010 permalink fedilink source parent